Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Search This Blog

Pages

Schools of Indian Philosophy

Projecting the past based on present, some opine
that ancient India was replete with bigotry, superstitions and lacked an
intellectual culture. Britishers purposefully created a system which was
designed to make Indians ashamed of themselves and look up to West for cultural
refinry and intellectual imports. Nothing can be farther to truth. In this post
I seek to outline the philosophical schools of India.

Pre-Islamic India was one thriving with lively
debates between [philosophical] experts of different persuasions in royal
courts, temples and other places. The Vedas [themselves peer-reviewed over
several centuries] were constantly reinterpreted, discussed and debated. I
endeavor to briefly outline the major philosophies here.

Two primary categories exist : Orthodox [which
accept testimony of Vedas] and Heterodox [don't accept Vedas]. Consequently,
the original words are astika (for orthodox) and nastika (for heterodox) which
we translate these days as believers and non-believers respectively. But this
categorization is incorrect as we are only referring to whether the school has
Vedic basis or not.

But sectarian classification in today's terms is
highly difficult as pure cults exist only in isolated pockets and most
present-day Hindus are smarthas – largely nonsectarian or liberal and
combine the practises of all philosophical schools while believing in all Gods
across cults of Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism . Its not easy to
permanently map these three cults with philosophical schools too, one can
probably follow any philosophical school and claim adherence to any cult
(atleast as far as my present understanding is concerned, but my efforts to
explain this to some tamil-brahmin friends, who locate themselves unambiguously
in one side of the Vaishnava–Shaiva divide,
have been in vain).

Yoga which is a highly lucrative business in
US/India today owes its origin to Hinduism. Although some so-called gurus
teaching in west have made some attempts to dislocate yoga from Hinduism to
give it a more universal, trans-religious appeal making it more presentable
& marketable to West, it remains irrefutably a part and parcel of Hindu
tradition. All Hindu traditions including yoga aim at dovetailing our activities
to achieve moksha. The practice of yoga merely for material gains such as
improved mental and physical health as being advocated by some gurus is
incorrect for the means cannot be delinked with the purpose (distinctly
dharmic). Using parts of well-established system and concocting some gyan while
stealing some knowledge from other sources doesn't make yoga non-Hindu. Of
course adaptation and improvisation is always welcome, but the source has to be
acknowledged, otherwise it amounts to theft. [read The Hindu
Roots of Yoga to learn more on this.]

Nyaya-Vaisesika school engages in mental gymnastics like speculation
and reasoning and have argued on the basis of logic that God exists. However
with the cultural and societal disruption due to Islamic invasions in India,
the atmosphere congenial to support such intellectual debates ceased to exist
and they declined by 15th century.

Heterodox

Today it is commonly felt that Indian philosophy
is purely a spiritual one. That's wrong. Much of the ancient Sanskrit
literature also contains commentaries critical of Vedic concepts and present a
largely materialist philosophy such as:

1)
Buddhism

2) Jainism

3) Carvaka (philosophy of
skepticism similar to the present Western philosophies)

Buddhism and Jainism although widely classified
as separate religions are very much a part and parcel of Hindu commonwealth of
schools and sects. The titles Buddha [Awakened One] and Mahavira [Great
Hero (of Self-Conquest)] were well in use much before Gautama and
Vardhamana assumed them. Subsequently, both borrowed heavily from existing
dharmic philosophies and carried on some concepts such as rebirth, liberation,
dharma, karma, moksha, nirvana etc. And they received patronage and freedom to
propagate their teachings from a primarily Vedic-cult people.

While Buddhism disappeared from the Indian
landscape due to Islamic invasions wherein their monasteries were burnt and
monks killed, Jains partly averted this fate because of their social binding
and taking up trading profession (Buddhists being ascetics couldn't outgrow
loss of valuable monasteries & peaceful places).

Carvaka is a purely materialistic philosophy
which criticizes Vedic (and also Buddhist, Jain) seers for relinquishing
pleasures on earth in anticipation of imaginary joy. It sees sense
gratification as the ultimate purpose of life. (how modern? ;) )

Interaction, Debates and Commonalities

Due to interaction between various cults, several
positives from all sects were well appreciated and integrated into the belief system
of other groups. For example, later day Vedic seers moved away from the animal
sacrifice (Buddhist influence) and advocated strong vegatarianism (Jain
influence).

Debates were arranged between experts of
different cults and were promoted by kings.
But this was done in a purely intellectual fashion wherein mockery and
sometimes even abuse of the other party's philosophy was prevalent, but that's
about it. There was seldom any violent confrontation or suppression of any
group by kings (irrespective of their personal adherence to a sect). Thus,
Kamal Hassan's story of a violent rift between Vaishnavas & Shaivas in Dashavataram
(movie) is just that – story, which doesn't have adequate historical basis.
To this day, these sects don't see eye to eye in many matters, but physical
prosecution of the other is a different matter altogether.

Backward projection of the prevailing scenario is
many times inaccurate. For example, in its heyday both Buddhism and Jainism
were atleast on equal footing with respect to Vedic propronents in terms of
royal patronage if not more ; rather Buddhism and Jainism received more
patronage than the Hindus at one point. Hence, the popular myth that Hindus
caused the decline of Buddhism in India is wrong. Of course, in intellectual
debates with Shankaracharya many Buddhist monks were fast losing resulting in
loss of prestige & following. But what ultimately caused wholesale decline
was loss of institutions and monasteries during Islamic invasions which killed
many and forced the survivors to escape India [many such landed in Tibet
resulting in flourishing of the religion in that region.]

Belief in possibility of experiencing
spirituality first-hand instead of communicating with God/Supersoul (or
whatever is considered Supreme) via some mediator. (in contrast with Islam/Christianity where
men communicate via Prophet/Jesus).

Ahistorical perspective of religion: Time is
generally non-linear and cyclic. Its not that one fine day, God decides to send
a savior who reveals the divine message and that's about it. Here, Gods/saints
appear again and again to restore dharma.

Non-finality of interpretation : All experiences
are considered progressive and there is no final message after which there is
no scope for improvement or changes. All texts are subject to reinterpretation
and this isn't regarded as blasphemy deserving strict action.

The Others : Those following other sects are sure
mocked upon. But they are not considered evil who deserve punishment.
Importantly, there is no call of duty to wage a war in terms of "us"
and "others".

One may find some exceptions here & there.
But overall, there was markedly peaceful coexistence and its outrageous to show the later Islam-Hindu
conflicts in the same light as earlier Hindu-Buddhist-Jain conflicts (putting
Hindu in one camp and combining Buddhists & Jains into another is itself
mischievous, as even Jain-Buddhist conflicts are recorded). While one at the
very worst was largely restricted to intellectual attacks, insults and mockery;
the other at the very least involves widespread terror, killings, subjugation,
temple-destruction & other physical & cultural violence.

Lastly, the society was secular and while kings
(and thus state) did patronize certain sects, they seldom prosecuted others
owing to religious-motives. The Dharmashastras which guided law implementation
were followed by kings irrespective of their personal allegiance to a sect,
they were designed thus. Alberuni, an Arab chronicler who visited India around
10th century made the following comment "...at the utmost
they [Indians] fight with words, but they will never stake their soul or body
or their property on religious controversy."

That pretty much sums up what kind of
intellectual freedom and what level of civilizational maturity India once had.

PS: I've just outlined the philosophies, its
basics, categories etc and have considerably watered them down due to space
constraints. These are meant as an introduction only.

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Labels

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The
concept of Dharma is not adequately understood by Hindus themselves, not to
mention others. Dharma is not a set of do’s and don’t’s or a simplistic
evaluation of good and bad. It requires considerable intellectual exertion to
even begin understanding Dharma, let alone mastering its use.

Is Dharma Translatable? Few
words of a language cannot be faithfully translated into another without
injuring its meaning, context & spirit. English translations of Dharma are
blurred and yield words like religion, sense of righteousness, discrimination between
good and bad, morals and ethics or that which is lawful. All these fall short
of fully grasping the essence of Dharma. Every
language has an ecosystem of words, categories and grammar which allow a user
to stitch words together to maximum effect such that meaning permeates the text
without necessarily being explicitly explained at each point. Sanskrit words
such dharma, karma, sloka, mantra, guru etc., now incorporated in English, lose
thei…

Imagine concepts
like feudal system, slavery, capitalistic exploitation and anti-Semitism being
used to define the core of Christianity! Christians will be outraged at this inappropriate
mixing of the core universal values of Christians and societal & historical
aspects which merely existed in a Christian world. Now this
raises the question – why is caste system defined as the core of Hinduism?
Especially as “caste” itself is a western construct. Sounds irrelevant? Okay. Now
imagine concepts like slave-trade, war on infidels, brutal subjugation of
masses, temple destruction, and forceful conversions marking the core of Islam.
It is
considered sensible to first understand what the core scriptures speak about
the religion and its universal values. The ills of the community & its societal
aspects are differentiated from its core philosophy. Now, this
brings us to the most interesting question – why is Caste System (caste based
on birth) propagated to be the defining feature of Hindu…

“Be like a garland maker, O king; not like a charcoal burner.”
--Mahabharata [It asks the king to preserve
and protect diversity, in a coherent way. The metaphor used is that of a
garland, in which flowers of many colors and forms are strung together for a
pleasing effect. The contrast is given against charcoal, which is the result of
burning all kinds of wood and reducing diversity to homogeneous dead matter.
The charcoal burner is reductionist and destroys diversity, whereas the garland
maker celebrates diversity.] Unification of Germany and
Italy populated by similar people was achieved by huge armies spanning across decades.
In sharp contrast, India under Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel managed to unite a much
larger area divided by culture & languages within few years. The European experience where
new nations were carved over little differences in identity, made the Indian
experiment appear poised for a breakup sooner than later. Yet, India managed to
stay united though the journey wa…